UPMC, city need dialogue

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

Not to rain on Bill Peduto's parade, but here's one word that ought to give him pause: UPMC.

One of the biggest headaches that awaits the city's mayor-elect is the unresolved lawsuit by the city against the region's largest employer. Peduto inherits the mess from lame-duck Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who eagerly jumped on the “Let's bash UPMC” bandwagon by challenging the nonprofit's tax-exempt status.

Ravenstahl, who hopefully gets his medical care at Allegheny Health Network, is adamant that UPMC ought to pay payroll and property taxes. He and other critics say UPMC is not a public charity and doesn't donate enough services to people who can't afford them.

UPMC has responded by saying the lawsuit is rooted in “baseless allegations” and has called the entire thing “shameful” and “bizarre.” They've gone as far as to accuse Ravenstahl of filing the lawsuit to improve his public image and “divert attention from scandalous public reports of his precarious legal predicament.”

Ouch.

This will not be an easy problem to resolve, Mr. Peduto. Along with its whopping $10 billion in revenue, UPMC has amassed an army of critics who no doubt will encourage Peduto to fight the good fight. As for UPMC, well, that revenue figure should be indicative of how much money it has to spend on lawyers.

Councilman Peduto is on record calling on UPMC to be accountable to its patients and workers. He has said UPMC hospitals should be open to all, regardless of what insurance they carry. And he has voiced the concerns of union leaders that some of UPMC's service workers are underpaid.

These are, indeed, serious issues that warrant deliberate and thoughtful attention. It is way too simplistic to get on a soapbox and demand that UPMC do this or that without analyzing and understanding what's at stake. I get that UPMC is not as popular as the Rubber Duck, and the letters atop the U.S. Steel building are pompous at best. I also get that UPMC dreams up arguments so laughable its own employees snicker in disbelief (Oh wait, UPMC argues in court it has no employees).

But if Peduto is smart (and I have no reason to doubt that he is), he will stay out of the courtroom. Unless, of course, he wants to see thousands of taxpayer dollars wasted on attorneys' fees in a long, protracted civil litigation.

Surely, Peduto understands that good leaders are good negotiators who find creative ways to solve problems. Good leaders don't allow problems to linger for years. That's exactly what would happen if this lawsuit prevails. UPMC no doubt would spend millions on an army of attorneys who would drag out this drama for the duration of Peduto's four-year term.

Peduto should send UPMC execs a nice email and invite them over for beer and pizza. They can roll up their sleeves and talk about the future of Pittsburgh and how, as Peduto said on the night of his victory, “we're the next great American city.” They can brainstorm ideas for how to make that happen so Pittsburgh doesn't become the next Detroit.

The focus should not be on subpoenas and affidavits. It should be on constructive solutions and achievable goals. Above all, this is a problem that should be addressed with respect. If anyone can do that, let's hope it's Peduto.

Luis Fábregas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7998 or lfabregas@tribweb.com.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.